March 19, 2007

It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home. That may be satisfying in the short run, but I believe the consequences for American security would be devastating....

Four years after this war began, the fight is difficult, but it can be won. It will be won if we have the courage and resolve to see it through....

The United States military is the most capable and courageous fighting force in the world. And whatever our differences in Washington, our troops and their families deserve the appreciation and the support of our entire nation.

That does clearly imply that if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops.

No, but it's a moot point whether we do or don't. What's the alternative? We've got the administration we've got, and they have the options that are available to them. Pulling out would be a hideous mistake, so that means we've got to stay in, and since the President's in chanrrge as long as we're in, that means being patient with the President.

Failure isn't an option. That means being patient, or presenting better alternatives, and I have none to bring forward.

I've got patience, but for the mission, not for George W. Bush. I supported the invasion and I'm appalled at how badly it's gone, when very smart people were giving useful advice about numbers and tactics that should have been followed a lot sooner, before all of the political capital was spent.

MM - I'm frustrated that this administration seems absolutely incapable of communicating anything with anyone, truthfully or otherwise They're not only incapable but counterproductive, as their cack-handed response to the U.S. Attorneys story, which could and should have been easily defused but which they managed to lend a whiff of scandal to by their handling. Likewise, it seems absurd that given how many people can speak eloquently about why Iraq was the right thing to do as a matter of policy, the administration has yet to employ any.

I still support the troops and the war itself (Hell; I'm not stupid), but I wish it were over and done with.

I don't think that is an unreasonable position, given the constant carping over the fact that we are in Iraq, is it?

If it wasn't the war it would be the economy, or the defict or the homeless, or the crime in the streets; something for the Dems to latch onto that would allow them to constantly critize the President.

Maybe that's what I'm really tired of; the endless campaign for power that takes the shape of political opposition?

Edjamikated - That's funny!I'm anxious to see the Democrats run on the economy, and a deficit that's been nearly reduced by half.Notice how those 2 subjects have been non-isues lately?Could it be those pesky little tax cuts!

Four years after the invasion of Iraq, the high and growing demand for U.S. troops there and in Afghanistan has left ground forces in the United States short of the training, personnel and equipment that would be vital to fight a major ground conflict elsewhere, senior U.S. military and government officials acknowledge.

More troubling, the officials say, is that it will take years for the Army and Marine Corps to recover from what some officials privately have called a "death spiral," in which the ever more rapid pace of war-zone rotations has consumed 40 percent of their total gear, wearied troops and left no time to train to fight anything other than the insurgencies now at hand.

The risk to the nation is serious and deepening, senior officers warn, because the U.S. military now lacks a large strategic reserve of ground troops ready to respond quickly and decisively to potential foreign crises, whether the internal collapse of Pakistan, a conflict with Iran or an outbreak of war on the Korean Peninsula. Air and naval power can only go so far in compensating for infantry, artillery and other land forces, they said. An immediate concern is that critical Army overseas equipment stocks for use in another conflict have been depleted by the recent troop increases in Iraq, they said.

I agree, but our ability to do so is hindered when the administration seems so utterly and chronically incapable of articulating the case for doing so in the face of rising public hostility. It's all well and good to have political courage to defy a majority of the public, but the utility of that strategy has a lifespan of your term of office unless, during your time in office, a majority can be convinced. Otherwise - as the midterms showed - they'll vote for any idiot who promises to give them what they want.

I am an isolationist at heart so I lost patience on March 20, 2003. My opinion as to what constitutes a national security threat to this nation doesn’t have the benefit of CIA/NSA (insert other intel acronym) but I never thought Saddam was much of a threat to us in 2003 or 1991 for that matter. I keep thinking that had we just ignored him in 1991 maybe he would have driven to Saudi Arabia, deposed the royal family, inserted all those extremist Wahabbists in industrial shredders, and caught the eye of Osama instead of us.

In the world of real-politick, you have to look for the good in every situation.

1. Did you ever lose time from work or school due to gambling? 2. Has gambling ever made your home life unhappy? 3. Did gambling affect your reputation? 4. Have you ever felt remorse after gambling? 5. Did you ever gamble to get money with which to pay debts or otherwise solve financial difficulties? 6. Did gambling cause a decrease in your ambition or efficiency? 7. After losing did you feel you must return as soon as possible and win back your losses? 8. After a win did you have a strong urge to return and win more? 9. Did you often gamble until your last dollar was gone? 10. Did you ever borrow to finance your gambling? 11. Have you ever sold anything to finance gambling? 12. Were you reluctant to use "gambling money" for normal expenditures? 13. Did gambling make you careless of the welfare of yourself or your family? 14. Did you ever gamble longer than you had planned? 15. Have you ever gambled to escape worry or trouble? 16. Have you ever committed, or considered committing, an illegal act to finance gambling? 17. Did gambling cause you to have difficulty in sleeping? 18. Do arguments, disappointments or frustrations create within you an urge to gamble? 19. Did you ever have an urge to celebrate any good fortune by a few hours of gambling? 20. Have you ever considered self destruction or suicide as a result of your gambling?

Most compulsive gamblers will answer yes to at least seven of these questions.

Ann, it's clear to me we need to go double or nothing. We're going to make our money back, I promise. The dice will get hot, they havet to get hot soon. Any other option is just quitting.

Bush is really addressing the Republicans, even if he doesn't say so. They are very impatient, and they are probably in his face more than the average American. It's their careers and political goals that are being destroyed by this war. They've been pressing the panic button for a year.

Bush himself had way too much patience with the execrable Donald Rumsfeld, and Cheney pimping for him.

I think what's happening now -- "the surge" -- is actually the best news out of this Administration in a while. Militarily, I don't think it's too late. Gen. Petreaus deserves our patience. We finally are pursuing a strategy that is not completely disconnected from what's happening on the ground. I get from news coverage and Iraqi blogs that this new thrust is getting some results. So, I'm not impatient about it, and totally reject the media-driven notion that "if we don't see results in six months, then we're going to have to pull out."

But what an awful president Bush has turned out to be. What a horribly misguided group of people he gathered 'round himself! We will endure him, and hope for the best because we hope for the best for America. But after he's left office, the entire Bush clan needs to go away for a long, long time.

It's all well and good to have political courage to defy a majority of the public, but the utility of that strategy has a lifespan of your term of office unless, during your time in office, a majority can be convinced.

So the battle for hearts and minds is actually for American hearts and minds? I thought the idea was to make Iraq a thriving Jeffersonian democracy, not simply to guarantee four more years of GOP rule.

Sloanasaurus - Between Mr. Bush's lack of wisdom and perhaps common sense in getting us into this, the Bush Administration's badly bungled running of the war, and the attitudes and actions of this country's elites, we are, indeed, done.

We need to withdraw and regroup for the next one, which I'm afraid will be much, much worse, and not of our choosing.

It's all well and good to have political courage to defy a majority of the public, but the utility of that strategy has a lifespan of your term of office unless, during your time in office, a majority can be convinced.

Don't be convinced that Democrats will suddenly dismantle Bush's apparatus currently being used to fight the terrorists if they take power. Democrats are perfectly willing to bomb civilians and take hash measures when they are in power (i.e. Kosovo). Moreover, if Bush's term runs out without another attack on American soil, don't expect a new Democratic President to start undoing the tools that Bush has used.... what happens if they do so and we are attacked again? It's political suicide. This is the very reason why Democrats won't defund the war.

Maybe someone can help me understand why we're still in Germany. Talk about patience.

Why isn't the Sheehan/Doyle crowd up in arms because we waste a fortune on bases in western Europe, where none of us need to be?

Because for the Sheehan/Doyle crowd, it's never about having patience or not having patience... it's about being willing to sacrifice you nation at the altar of BDS for venal political interests.

I have patience for the Iraq war, given the degree of difficulty (trying to turn barbarians into moral human beings). What I don't have patience for anymore is the traitorous activity of the Sheehan/Doyle crowd.

Four years after the invasion of Iraq, the high and growing demand for U.S. troops there and in Afghanistan has left ground forces in the United States short of the training, personnel and equipment that would be vital to fight a major ground conflict elsewhere, senior U.S. military and government officials acknowledge

If this demonstrates anything is that despite having what is touted as the strongest military in the world, it certainly has some shortcomings in terms of sustained military operations. If we’re coming apart at the seams in what is essentially a low scale insurgency (not even close to Vietnam) then there are some fundamental problems. Basically what this tells me is that conflicts need to be settled within 12-24 months after which, call it quits. Granted we can destroy the enemy army but then what? We simply don’t have the numbers to have an effective occupying force which tells an enemy that we can defeat their armed forces but we can’t defeat a nation a la WW2 Germany/Japan. Simply disband and mount an insurgency.

The link RC posted has merit but only to the extent that if it wasn’t Iraq, we’d be facing the same issue in some other conflict. So even if it was a ‘good war’, we’d be in the same situation.

As late as the mid 1980’s the US military was designed to fight two major conflicts at the same time but then again, we had a million man active army.

Doyle said..."So the battle for hearts and minds is actually for American hearts and minds? I thought the idea was to make Iraq a thriving Jeffersonian democracy, not simply to guarantee four more years of GOP rule."

The tension is illusory. If the Democrats win the next election, what I do or don't want to do in Iraq will be a moot point: they'll pull the troops out. Thus, "four more years of GOP rule" is a prerequisite for any discussion about helping Iraq.

Reality Check - you're an idiot. Of course failure is a possibility it is simply not a tolerable option, and our selection of possible policy choices should be premised on this. And your rattling of the unitary executive theory in a discussion where it has no application just shows that you don't understand what the theory is, and have chosen to use it (as most of your fellow idiots have chosen) as a meaningless epithet. I'll talk about the unitary executive theory in the context of the U.S. Attorneys story, for example, where it applies, but not in the context of Iraq where there is no dispute of the President's authority.

paul a'barge said..."Why isn't the Sheehan/Doyle crowd up in arms because we waste a fortune on bases in western Europe ... ? Because for the Sheehan/Doyle crowd, ... it's about being willing to sacrifice you nation at the altar of BDS for venal political interests."

The Michael Totten thing linked about has another great point addressing that - the anti-war crowd is far more anti-Bush than it is anti-war.

I endorsed the Afghanistan war, and would like to see a greater presence there today.

Assuming that the jihadists/fascists from the middle east would have fought us where ever we went (currently they are all in Iraq), would you have preferred to fight them in Afghanistan rather than in Iraq?

That was certainly a question Bush had to deal with...where to fight them.

Hoosier Daddy (btw, that is a fantastic nickname), what it shows is the incompetence and political chicanery on the part of Bush.

The war is now in its fifth year.

They have had plenty of time to ramp up the army so that it could simultaneously fight multiple wars.

IIRC, in fact, in response to Iraq, the Pentagon changed its mission from being able to fight two wars at once, to being able to fight only one war, while stalling the other. (My recollection, I could be wrong when this occurred.)

Rumsfeld/Bush thought this would be a six week war, and fired Shinseki who said it would take 400,000 troops. Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone that asked about Phase IV planning.

Instead of coming clean with the American People and explaining the costs and asking for sacrifice, Bush elected to use stop-loss as a backdoor draft, to allow more criminals and incompetents into the army, to push troops into the field with insufficient time to regroup and retrain for the mission, and to employ 100,000 mercenaries with no oversight.

When people have predicted and pointed out all of these problems those folks are accused of being traitors. When people point out that Iran and NK and Al Qaeda may be more important enemies, they are called cut and runners.

When people suggest redeployment and troop reduction so that we can repair our army and protect ourselves, we are told those people want America to lose. And we are told those people never offered a plan. When the truth is, no plan will be counted as a plan by you folks unless it involves more troops not less.

So it's your war, you guys made sure there could be no discussion or dissent that wasn't treated as treason, you guys called anyone that disagreed a pussy or a faggot, you guys broke the army, raided the treasury, and refused to listen to other voices.

Patience for what? No offense, but how mnay of us are directly affected by the war? How many of us have sons & daughters in harm's way? How many of us are donating our time and energy to any of the support groups listed over at BlackFive? How many of us wouldn't know a war was on without the media telling us?

How many of us have lost our civil rights? How many of us are happy we are a nation that condones torture? How many of us are affected by the increasing terrorism in the world? How many of us are afraid to travel now with an US Passport and American accent?

How many of us are happy that India's nukes are overlooked, that Pakistan was selling nuke technology, that NK now has nukes?

How many of us have a friend, or know a friend of a friend whose live was lost in the war?

How many of us know that Pat Tillman said, "this was is so fucking illegal?"

How many of us will be seeing homeless vets on our sidewalks, and be affected by vets with PTSD in the years ahead?

How will our taxes be raised to pay for this war, and pay for the repairs to our army and marine corp?

Patience for what? No offense, but how many of us are directly affected by the war? ... How many of us wouldn't know a war was on without the media telling us?

So it's your war, you guys made sure there could be no discussion or dissent that wasn't treated as treason, you guys called anyone that disagreed a pussy or a faggot...

This gets repeated a lot. I would assume you have at least one example, other than Ari Fleisher's inept phrasing in response to Bill Maher's disgustingly cold-hearted joke. If you can find me a quote from a reputable source where a single war opponent is called a "pussy," a "faggot," or a "traitor," please post it.

P.S. If you do the Glenn Greenwald trick of finding a deranged commenter on a website like Little Green Footballs who said something like this, that will be the tip off that you've got nothing.

If you can find me a quote from a reputable source where a single war opponent is called a "pussy," a "faggot," or a "traitor," please post it.

Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot, and Tom Delay just yesterday called all war critics traitors ("aiding and abetting the enemy"). Glenn Reynolds have said war critics aren't anti-war "just on the other side", etc.

The wingnuttosphere is just overflowing with this kind of rhetoric. It's curious you would even bother to dispute it.

Am I an adult? Am I supposed to whine that someone else doesn't cut the crust off my bread?

What kind of whining baby blames their own opinions on someone elses supposed responsibility to manipulate their emotions and woo their passion?

Waaaaaaa!!!! He didn't talk nice and get me all pepped up for the big game! It's not MY fault I wasn't cheering for our guys to win! I want cheerleaders, dangit! I want a feaking circus. My apathy and anti-americanism is NOT MY FAULT.

Sorry. I don't care if Bush talks pretty or not. I'm responsible *myself* for understanding the systemic and growing threat of Islamic extremism and how the shithole that spawns it needs to be fixed *now*. It's up to me to look at history (and how liberals used to clearly promote equality and justice, but now they "respect" the right of brown people to treat women like property, own slaves, and rule through oppressision and fear,) and understand that events aren't isolated and that the results of allowing terror to work, to shut up cartoonists with death threats, blow up discos and trains and somehow still be seen as preferable to an ethos of liberty and equality, is going to be ever more of the same.

What works gets repeated.

"Progressives" have given up defending freedom as something that doesn't really matter. It's just that other culture over there and we mustn't judge them. If they hate us, it's because we did something to them. Burkas are liberating and things were better, or at least tolerable, for *most* people in Saddam's Iraq and the Taliban? Why that's just a different way of thinking. Who cares if Kurds were gassed and the Marsh Arabs faced their extinction. Huh?

It's not Bush's fault if the anti-war sorts can't connect two things in the world beyond our popularity with Europe. Nothing relates to anything. Makes it simple. Madrid has nothing to do with Indonesia. Afghanistan has nothing to do with Somalia. The crushing of free speech in Cairo has nothing at all to do with the Iranian theocracy.

And if we fail in Iraq, well that's sad, but it really doesn't matter to anything else in the world. Not to Darfur, not to Mindinao, not to Pakistan, not to Indonesia, not to Cairo or Lebanon or Jordan. And most of all, not to our reputation or ability to present ourselves as reliable allies.

I don't need Bush to move me. I don't need him to make me care or get me motivated.

I swear, it's like going to a church where people blame the pastor for not being emotional enough so they have a super spiritual experience.

PS Glenn Greenwald's "trick" isn't a trick so much as it is his criticism of the practice of using commenters as proxies for bloggers.

The Howard Kurtz column making a big deal out of the HuffPo comments on Cheney drove him nuts, because no one pays comparable attention to the stuff that gets written by commenters on LGF. It was an appeal to fairness.

I am in it to win - therefore I have all the patience in the world as long as we are fighting to win - which we seem to be doing now. My only complaint is we should have "surged" a couple of years ago.

Almost all wars are testaments to stupidity and failure, both in their causes and how they are fought, and their horrors are infinite and unspeakable.

Whether or not we should have gone to war against Iraq is now irrelevant. Whether or not Bush is doing or has done a good job is irrelevant.

What does matter now is standing by our friends and helping create an Iraq that's at peace with its neighbors and trying to promote peaceful change throughout the region.

It was ominous to read this morning that someone is throwing a lavish $25,000 a plate party at the Great Pyramids in Cairo. It reminds me of the bizarre parties the Shah threw celebrating 2,500 years of the Persian Empire just before the Iranian Revolution. Poverty in Egypt is sickening. Let's hope the hopeless mobs of cemetery dwellers in Cairo don't go on the rampage....

Better a President that shoots us in the foot several times than one who shoots us in the head once. And in any event, the comparison is inapposite, because none of the likely GOP nominees in 2008 have had any involvement in running the war. If Condi Rice, Dick Cheney or Don Rumsfeld were the presumptive nominee, that criticism might be valid, but they aren't so it isn't.

If the purpose was to eliminate the threat of WMD (which for us Brits was supposedly all it was ever about) everyone could have been home in days. "Whooops, no WMD. My bad. Sorry. Cheerio."

If it was 'regime change', well that was accomplished years ago. The fact that the new regime is at least as lethal to Iraqis as the last is just tough.

If it's 'peace and stability', then it's Hotel California time - check in but never leave.

If it's 'peace with honour' - start packing and quit Baghdad as if it were Saigon.

If it's 'defeat the terrorist', 'war on terror' - well sorry folks that's Afghanistan not Iraqistan. Except of course the place is now swarming with Al Qaeda wannabees and will remain so as long as there is a foreign soldier on Iraqi soil.

If it's 'save the good folk of Iraq', well then why not start with the half million or so who have fled to other lands?

If it's 'just say no to civil war' then sadly too late. Even the Pentagon now agrees.

If it's 'universal justice for all' then get the heck over to Zimbabwe tonight.

"I don't need Bush to move me. I don't need him to make me care or get me motivated. "

Good for you. But assuming that a majority of the electorate is just as informed and engaged and as self-starting as you are is a fast way to lose an election. Politics, as Bismarck reminds us, is the art of the possible.

We should all support a disastrous, dishonestly sold war into its fifth year and beyond if necessary.

Its neither disastrous nor was it dishonest. Via Captian's Quarters:

"What we're doing in that country is following the same basic pattern that we've used to expand freedom around the world for more than 60 years in places like Japan, Europe, and El Salvador. First, you stand up a free government. Next, you stand up a military capable of protecting that free government, and lastly, the Americans leave.

We've stood up this free government in Iraq and we've also stood up 129 Iraqi battalions that are trained and equipped. What we need to do now is rotate all those Iraqi battalions into combat zones, which will help re-enforce the chain of command, develop combat effectiveness, and help validate the civilian government's control over the military.

While those Iraqi troops are getting battle hardened, they'll need the support of American troops. That's where the President's plan comes in. You can call it a surge, you can call it an escalation, you can call it whatever you want, but what the President is doing is sending reinforcements to Iraq to help mentor and train the Iraqi troops, secure the country, and complete the mission." - Rep. Duncan Hunter

Doyle said..."none of the likely GOP nominees in 2008 have had any involvement in running the war. Coincidence?"

Yes, actually. I'm hard-pushed to think of anyone running the war who had any intention of seeking elected office. The only one who even comes close is Rice, and her candidacy exists only in the fevered dreams of a few supporters - she's repeatedly disclaimed interest. Can you name anyone who's been involved in running the war who had Presidential ambitions who has since dropped out of the race?

So it's your war, you guys made sure there could be no discussion or dissent that wasn't treated as treason, you guys called anyone that disagreed a pussy or a faggot, you guys broke the army, raided the treasury, and refused to listen to other voices.Um…do me a favor and refrain from including me as a war supporter as I was perfectly content in leaving Saddam in power as I was Slobodon or any of the other tin pots who were focused on oppressing/massacring their own population rather than presenting a clear and present danger to the US. I subscribe to the Prime Directive option for our foreign policy. As for ramping up the army, that’s easier said than done during wartime. If it was, we would not have had to draft during WW2 and there wouldn’t have been draft riots during the US Civil War. Even ‘popular wars’ need some coercian to get the masses involved since the gung ho factor generally drops off after the first body bags start coming home. FDR asked for sacrifice too but it was also rigidly enforced; no one voluntarily accepted gasoline rationing for example. To a certain extent you are right in that dissent on the war has been criticized as treasonous but in all fairness, I also suspect a lot of people who decry this war as ‘illegal’ had no problem or were at least ambivalent with our intervention in Serbia which had no authorization from the UN or Congress if memory serves. I believe in consistency at least for the purposes of intellectual honesty when debating the merits of going to war regardless of what the outcome is.

And for those who think limiting ops to Afganistan [not Iraq] would have made us safer [via instapundit]

"In response to the latest Islamist threat against Spain, the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (Partido Socialista Obrero Español - PSOE) thought it appropriate to assure Spaniards that "Afghanistan is not Iraq." PSOE officials told news agencies that while the war in Iraq was "illegal," the mission in Afghanistan is being supported by the UN and includes 37 countries. It turns out Islamic terrorists don't care all that much about the distinction.

In a video issued this month by the Global Islamic Media Front, a hooded man warns that the presence of Spanish troops in Afghanistan "exposes Spain again to threats." The terrorist also delivers a message to all those Spaniards who flocked to the polls to elect the Socialists after the March 11 Madrid bombings: "The Spanish people have been tricked by a Socialist government which withdrew troops from Iraq and sent 600 to Afghanistan." So much for Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's assurances that the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq would make the country safer."

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=031907C

The only good reason I see for withdrawing from Iraq is to lure the terrorists and their IEDs into "blue city-states" like NYC, Boston, and Los Angeles. Maybe then the Left will understand what this is all about.

Doyle said..."The reason none of the viable Republican nominees was involved in the war is because if they were involved in the war they wouldn't be viable nominees."

That's a facile attempt to avoid my previous question, which was, "Can you name anyone who's been involved in running the war who had Presidential ambitions who has since dropped out of the race?" Bring forward a name, Brian. Your point - which isn't necessarily wrong in the abstract, by the way - only holds water to the extent that it applies to people who (a) have been involved in running the war who (b) had aspirations to the Presidency but who (c) have declined to seek the nomination after things in Iraq started to go south. Who do you suggest meets those criteria?

The only person who even comes close to fitting that description is Bill Frist, but (a) he wasn't actually involved in running the war and (b) his candidacy wasn't sunk by Iraq, it was sunk by his total ineptitude as Senate Majority Leader.

reality check said..."You guys are incredibly dishonest. First tou [sic.] claim the democrats are traitors. And then you insist it is a bi-partisan war."

Reality Check, you're an idiot; there is indeed doublethink at work here, but it's on the part of the Democrats, who speak of withdrawal yet explicitly refuse to actually use (indeed, have foreswarn using) their power to force withdrawal.

Afghanistan is a horrible place to fight the terrorists. The land is all mountainous, perfect for defense. There is no port to supply our armies - it is surrounded by questionable friends/competitors such as (Russia, China, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Iran). Afghanistan has no natural resources that can be used to fund a national army to fight the terrorists along with us and take casualties for the cause. We have no long term alliances with anyone in Afghanistan (unlike Iraq with the Kurds) - no one can be completely trusted. Like Iraq, Afghanistan also has a sectarian problem that would be supported by external countries.

Fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan is a really bad option. Best to fight them somewhere else (except on our own streets). Anyone who says they support the war in Afghanistan and not in Iraq has only thought superficially about the long term outcome of the conflict and our goal to suppress and destroy the islamic fascist movement around the globe.

This is not true of today’s protesters, who should at least be aware of that history, however they may interpret it. Some of them, such as 36-year-old Maggie Johnson, show an astounding inability to understand differences in scale when making historical comparisons. This quote from her referring to World War II is a good example:

"We’ve been in Iraq longer than we were in World War II and we’ve accomplished a heck of a lot less. It’s time we wrap it up."

Does this woman understand how many men fought in World War II? How many died to achieve what was accomplished then? Would she for a single moment have stood for such numbers?

Here are the figures: the estimates are that between thirteen and sixteen million Americans fought in that war. About 311,000 were killed. Many millions more died all over the world; here are some figures to ponder. The numbers are staggering, and these are just the military deaths, although during WWII civilians in Europe and Asia suffered and died almost as readily.

Ms. Johnson is making some other errors of comparison. Because the length of World War II to which she refers was the length of the “hot” war, the one that in Iraq lasted a matter of mere weeks. World War II was followed by lengthy occupations and rebuildings of both Germany and Japan before it was over and its “accomplishments” solidified.

Apparently, people were more patient then. Here’s a quote on the subject from General Abizaid, due to retire soon as Centcom commander:

How do you win a “long war” against Islamic extremism if your country has a short attention span? That’s an overarching concern for Abizaid in a conflict where time — not troops, not tactics — is the true strategic resource. “The biggest problem we’ve got is lack of patience,” he says. “When we take upon ourselves the task of rebuilding shattered societies, we need not to be in a hurry. We need to be patient, but our patience is limited. That makes it difficult to accomplish our purposes.”

Afghanistan is a horrible place to fight the terrorists. The land is all mountainous, perfect for defense. There is no port to supply our armies - it is surrounded by questionable friends/competitors such as (Russia, China, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Iran). Afghanistan has no natural resources that can be used to fund a national army to fight the terrorists along with us and take casualties for the cause. We have no long term alliances with anyone in Afghanistan (unlike Iraq with the Kurds) - no one can be completely trusted. Like Iraq, Afghanistan also has a sectarian problem that would be supported by external countries.

A cop walking his beat one night finds a drunk on his knees, searching for something on the street. The cop asks the drunk, “What are you doing?” “Looking for my car keys,” says the drunk. The cop asks, “Where did you lose your keys?” “I don’t know,” the man answers. The cop, a bit perplexed, asks, “Then, why are you looking here if you don’t know where you lost your keys?” Responds the drunk, “Because the light is better here, under the streetlight.”

Because the length of World War II to which she refers was the length of the “hot” war, the one that in Iraq lasted a matter of mere weeks. World War II was followed by lengthy occupations and rebuildings of both Germany and Japan before it was over and its “accomplishments” solidified.

Yes, because we all recall that the vast numbers of Americans killed in WWII came after Germany and Japan surrendered.

I don't even remember anymore what it means to "support" the troops or the war? Is that the same as being in favor of or really liking? How 'bout giving encourgagement to. I'm not out on tarmacs welcoming returning soldiers so maybe I doon't support the troops? Or does it mean to advance the best interests of? Does Bush want us to undergird the war and troops? It's all so confusing.

The middle and upper story is the AP story about 4 year Iraq War anniversary and how Americans have lost patience.

On the same fron page, in the Upper Left Hand Corner is a much more sympathetic story named "Sizing Up The Cures For Crime In Philadelphia" where the annual murder rate is around 400.

The two problems are very similar in nature (death & violence unabated even when guvmint tries many tactics) yet the story outlooks are very different. One is of course highly critical of Bush guvmint failure while the other laments Local guvmint effort but little results.

So when you guys say you don't support nation building, it means you want to be in Iraq for as long as it takes.

When we say we do support nation building, and when we say we would like to see more troops in Afghanistan to protect Kabul and keep the Taliban out and go after Al Qaeda, that means we want out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.

Fen, I encourage you to become a brain donor should you pass away. It's rare to be able to have a brain in such smooth, virgin condition. Mine is totally wrinkled!

Do they get mad at Murtha and Reid when they suggest cutting off funds?

No.

Are they concerned when Reid the Leader suggests no more or slowing troop rotations, leaving the guys out in the field wondering whether or not they'll get relief?

No.

The war did not start on 9/11.

War was not declared by Bush. It was declared in the 80's against the United States by two seperate terrorist groups.

They had been attacking the military repeatedly and the military has been trying to contain the Middle east since the Marine Barrack bombings in 1985.

Military ops tempo and rotations to the sand box have been going full tilt ever since then.

That didn't start on 9/11.

That didn't begin with George W. Bush.

The military has been taking hits since 1985 and the Left only became concerned with military death tolls when they could be used as a tool in their War. Their war which pre-empts all else.

Their war on those brave enough to call themsleves Americans.

The Left only became interested in the military when they suddenly became concerned with the defecit and what it might cost THEM.

They've never wanted to spend money on the military-cutting off funding is just more of that value plank in the Democratic platform.

They don't support the troops they only want to use their bodies to support their sanctimonious soap boxes from where they can preach about how the military is brainless, doesn't really understand what they are doing and only Liberals know what is best for them.

Liberals like to dictate to and "help" their victim classes like that.

In the months and years following the end of the World War Two, Allied forces faced a series of bombings and attacks in occupied Germany.

Nazi loyalists attempted to derail the rebuilding process by killing any Germans collaborating with the enemy. And the mysterious SS-Werewolves underground organization boasted of the coming rebirth of the Party.

Today, little is known about the activities of the Werewolves and other groups who opposed the Allied forces during this postwar period. And while the Nazi resistance effort did eventually fail, many of its methods and the harsh Allied response to them have real world implications for the present situation in Iraq.

"The Last Nazis" will explore how the SS-Werewolves terrorized military and civilian targets behind enemy lines such as industrial plants, fuel depots, supply lines, and stray soldiers.

We'll hear from a former Werewolf as he describes his motivation and role in the guerilla movement. In addition we'll travel to Aachen, where Werewolves assassinated the pro-Allied mayor, and Penzberg, the site of the "Night of Murder" - a senseless rampage aimed at preventing any German collaboration in which more than a dozen German civilians were killed.

We'll also explore the Allied attempt to purge Germany's Nazi past through denazification tribunals - an increasingly unpopular set of trials that was hit by a wave of bombings.

I suppose it solves the problem of showing where another person is wrong. It takes the place of actually seeing another person as a person, dehumanizing them and dismissing them.

In this particular case it upsets me because I think I know who you're talking about and if so, there's no doubt about her thoughtfulness or intelligence. Lacking any sort of opposing arguments you resort to name calling? Or is it just the standard "lefty" thinking, that the right answer is so obvious that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be chosing what they know is untrue simply because they are hateful?

Where does this venom come from? Does it just piss you off so much that someone might make a persuasive argument for abandoning the liberal mindset? Is there some irresitable compulsion involved to villify anyone who dares to be apostate?

Heh, sort of like Islam. There's some small measure of tolerance for the infidel, but the apostate must be killed.

It is an impossible comparison. Over 408,000 Americans were killed in action during WWII. We lost more people on D-Day than we have in all the fighting in Iraq. To try to compare the two wars in terms of American lives lost is meaningless, which I think was what "Appleface" was trying to point out. At least that is what I took from that part of the post.

My point was that our nation had the patience to fight a big war and lose 408,000 lives back then, but we can't seem to find the patience to fight a much smaller one now with far fewer loses.

Times have changed and not for the better.

Oh yes, I did also want to point out that no war ends all neat and pretty - some people have to be convinced that they lost - like the Werewolves and now the terrorists in Iraq.

Communicating effectively is what good leaders do. But you go to war with the leaders you have, I guess.

To try to compare the two wars in terms of American lives lost is meaningless

Yes, I've noted this before. Medical advances on the battlefield means that many injuries that would have been fatal in an earlier war now are not. The inter-war comparison becomes more apt if you increase the number of casualties in Iraq, to account for injuries in Iraq that would have been deadly in an earlier war.

The American people really have no choice. Bush is the decider and he has made this decision. Like Bush said future decisions regarding this war will be left to whomever is in the new administration.

I think most Americans have just turned him off and are ready for something new which could be why all of the interest in the 08 election two years out.

I supported this war in the beginning. Part of it was because we were led to believe by this administration that it would be a rather easy venture, short time span, limited troops, limited cost, Iraqis would love us. None of which happened.

The lack of planning and the incompetence is suprising. With all that experience in the White House you would of think that some of their forecasts would of come true.

So here we are beginning our 5th year and where are we? Loss of respect and credibility throughout the world (I realize that doesn't matter); over 3000 young americans dead; the coalition of the willing shrinking daily; spending 2 billion a week; Abu Ghrab; Walter Reed; countless Iraqis dead; millions of the middle class Iraq refugees fleeing their country and the American support dwindling.

And the said fact is we really are stuck. We stay we are in the middle of a civil war that has been going on thousands of year; we go and the entire place blows up possibly moving into other countries. At sometime we will have to leave and there will likely be worse bloodshed than is going on now. Very sad.

I know many of you love Bush on this site but he will really go down as the worst president; at least God loves him.

Huh? Simon calls me an idiot three times in this one post and I call one anonymous blogger apple face because her blog has a picture of her with an apple where her face is and appleface is easier to type and pronounce and remember than neoneocon and I'm the one full of venom?

I don't think she's upset that I call her apple face. Would you prefer I call her Granny Smith?

I don't have any stats, but I would bet that more American servicemen died in Germany and Japan in the 4 years after World War II than have died in Iraq. Not in combat, but from accidents and illness while serving in occupation. Of course after you just suffered 400,000 deaths in 4 years of war, another 15,000 in 4 years of peace doesn't make much for news. Maybe someone can do some research. As recently as 1980, more than 2000 servicemen a year died from accidents in the U.S. military.

War statistics are often confusing. The Mexican American war is often cited as the bloodiest war in terms of deaths to the number serving (more than 10%. Yet, from the 13,000 who died, less than 2000 died in combat.

boston70 said..."I think most Americans have just turned him off and are ready for something new which could be why all of the interest in the 08 election two years out."

There may be something in that. I know that there are some -- I believe that there is a growing number -- of Republicans who are sick to the back teeth with this administration, and have been so for a while, and so can't wait to cast eyes to the future.

The inter-war comparison becomes more apt if you increase the number of casualties in Iraq, to account for injuries in Iraq that would have been deadly in an earlier war.

True, but such a statistic must also be considered along with advances in the tecnology of the enemy being able to cause more casualties with higher tech explosive devices and modern tech devices such as night vision and gadgets such as cell phones being used to trigger IEDs.

So here we are beginning our 5th year and where are we? Loss of respect and credibility throughout the world (I realize that doesn't matter); over 3000 young americans dead; the coalition of the willing shrinking daily; spending 2 billion a week; Abu Ghrab; Walter Reed; countless Iraqis dead; millions of the middle class Iraq refugees fleeing their country and the American support dwindling.

You left out the part of Americans not being attacked in America in the last 5 years. Isn't that what the war is all about? Isn't that why we went to war in Iraq - to protect America from attack?

I am not sure what world or country you folks that haven't been attacked since 9/11 live in. There have been many attacks on Westerners and Americans since then. Many have been on US soil (and/or US airlines.)

Overall world terror attacks are up. They tripled in 2004. The September 06 NIE said that the war on Iraq "has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks." Of course, you may not know that since the Bush Administration keeps removing that information from the news.

The Administration also claims to have disrupted 10 plots against Americans and Westerners:

10 PLOTS

1. The West Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2002 the U.S. disrupted a plot to attack targets on the West Coast of the United States using hijacked airplanes. The plotters included at least one major operational planner involved in planning the events of 9/11.

2. The East Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2003 the U.S. and a partner disrupted a plot to attack targets on the East Coast of the United States using hijacked commercial airplanes.

3. The Jose Padilla Plot: In May 2002 the U.S. disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the plotters, Jose Padilla, also discussed the possibility of using a "dirty bomb" in the U.S.

4. The 2004 U.K. Urban Targets Plot: In mid-2004 the U.S. and partners disrupted a plot that involved urban targets in the United Kingdom. These plots involved using explosives against a variety of sites.

5. The 2003 Karachi Plot: In the Spring of 2003 the U.S. and a partner disrupted a plot to attack Westerners at several targets in Karachi, Pakistan.

6. The Heathrow Airport Plot: In 2003 the U.S. and several partners disrupted a plot to attack Heathrow Airport [outside London] using hijacked commercial airliners. The planning for this attack was undertaken by a major 9/11 operational figure.

7. The 2004 U.K. Plot: In the Spring of 2004 the U.S. and partners, using a combination of law enforcement and intelligence resources, disrupted a plot to conduct large-scale bombings in the U.K.

8. The 2002 Arabian Gulf Shipping Plot: In late 2002 and 2003 the U.S. and a partner nation disrupted a plot by al-Qa'ida operatives to attack ships in the Arabian Gulf.

9. The 2002 Straits of Hormuz Plot: In 2002 the U.S. and partners disrupted a plot to attack ships transiting the Straits of Hormuz.

10. The 2003 Tourist Site Plot: In 2003 the U.S. and a partner nation disrupted a plot to attack a tourist site outside the United States.

In my younger days, I used to be a lefty. I knew all the right words, bought the right books, and followed all the right ideas as deemed for me by my teachers and the press. But I soon discovered that the world did not seem to work as they'd claimed. The world was in fact more Machiavellian and less progressive.

And now, despite the murder of 3000 and the destruction of the Twin Towers, despite the fact that every terrorist attack the world over is caused by some guy named Mohammad, the left still clings to be absurd hope that "if you walk away, I'll walk away."

Certainly, we can leave the Iraqis to suffer the same fate that befell Southeast Asia when we abandoned Vietnam. (What's 3 million dead to me when I'm tired of it all?) But you can be certain that if we do, Wahabi fascists already preaching their demand to Islamify the U.S. will find license to begin their battle here.

There is no guarantee the Iraqi war will keep them away, and we may be piling too much effort there instead of here. But that's a very different issue than what the Democrat have to offer, which is surrender and appeasement.

You list many attacks that were thwarted by the "incompetent Bush Administration."

The conventional wisdom after 9-11 was that we would be attacked again soon in a big way. We haven't. Who knows what has prevented it. It could be mostly the war it could be mostly law enforcement. It could be both combined. The fact is - no attacks in the U.S. Not even a bus bomb.

I am not saying that there won't be another attack at some point, but it is amazing that there hasn't been one. Bush's strategy has been an all out offensive in all fronts - military, police, and legal. So far it has worked. Someone needs to give Bush a little credit for that.

Simon calls you idiot, reality check, but he also bothers to refute what you've said. You reference "apple face" with "Apple face always was and always will be an idiot." Which isn't even making a token effort to say she's wrong on this issue. It's as broad as possible in scope and for the purpose (considering she's not even *here*) of slandering her and dismissing her.

Sorry if calling names behind someone's back when you're not even refuting an argument strikes me as just a little bit different than if, for instance, you call me an idiot to my "face".

So why do you hate her so much? Because she wandered off the plantation? Because she actually makes persuasive arguments for a neocon conversion?

Given your judgement on Barbara Bush and your refusal to admit you might have been snookered into judging her out of context by Frank Rich {see the lengthy analysis by the liberal website snopes that refuted Rich that I left on the previous Iraq thread}

I really think a lot of you can't see outside the BF Skinner Box that the media has set up for you. It is much easier to accept being spoon fed the majority of the information just by the sheer fact that it is so volumnious. It's easier not to fight that.

Thinking outside of that box might blow you out of your comfort zone.

It's kind of like high school where it's easier to cave to the bullies and the want to fit in with the cool kids over-rides the need to be an individual.

Your choice right?

Some see past the environment that is being controlled for them though-

When an Arabs or westerners ask me about the situation and I answer that hope remains and that we’re looking forward to a better future most would say ‘Are you living in this world?’ I answer, ‘Yes, it’s you who live in the parallel world the media built for you with images of only death and destruction’.

the left still clings to be absurd hope that "if you walk away, I'll walk away."

Oh please, no one on the left believes that. We prefer being effective over just demolishing a country that had nothing to do with it and pissing everyone in the world off. You're just being nonsensical again Pogo.

Synova, what do you mean I didn't refute her?

Here, I'll repeat what I said, but slower this time so that you can follow along:

Because the length of World War II to which she refers was the length of the "hot" war, the one that in Iraq lasted a matter of mere weeks. World War II was followed by lengthy occupations and rebuildings of both Germany and Japan before it was over and its "accomplishments" solidified.

"I turn off a light and say, 'Take that, Iran,' and 'Take that, Venezuela.' We should not be sending our money to people who are not going to support our values."

Yes. Nevermind the fact that the electricity she saved doing that is most likely to have been generated by American coal, nuclear, hydro, etc. than foreign oil. "Take that, American coal miner!" "Take that, American turbine operator!"

Because the length of World War II to which she refers was the length of the "hot" war, the one that in Iraq lasted a matter of mere weeks. World War II was followed by lengthy occupations and rebuildings of both Germany and Japan before it was over and its "accomplishments" solidified.

We have occupied Iraq for far less time than we have occupied Europe.

We lost far fewer soldiers in the initial subjugation of Iraq than we lost in the initial subjugation of Germany.

Therefore, by the standards of previous wars fought, the Iraq war cannot be judged a 'failure'. If the Iraq war was worth it and winnable in the beginning, it still is now.

And if it was never worth it and never winnable, why did so many democrats vote for the war?

Hey "reality" : have ya noticed that the tangoes attack where they can? They have not been able to attack the US directly for over five years.

More importantly, a lot of it has nothing to do with the US, and nothing to do with Israel. In Bali they attacked the economic engine of a Hindu part of the country.

Bush is just fine in my book. He has earned my patience because for the first time in 22 years he actually DID something about terrorist attacks. I can half forgive Reagan -- he had bigger fish to fry at the time -- but I can't forgive Bush (41) or Clinton for just lollygagging along as if it didn't matter.

He ACTED in response. The attacks since then have been weak, and increasing directed at Arab targets.

The US has double-tapped (or captured) a large percentage of AQ's "officer corp," both at the commissioned level and the NCO level.

It really doesn't matter if they're recruiting a bunch of privates who don't know $#!+. Very low value operatives. The AQ officer corp, in comparison, has been devastated, which is why their attacks are of lessening significance.

The 'it'? What is it? s Mr. Pall asked.

'It' is something Giuliani figured our many years ago in NYC. Drop a precinct station into the bad neighborhoods.

We passed the "Victory" stage years ago. Saddam is gone, and we busted the nuclear weapons program he outsourced to Libya, as well as busting the Khan ring.

Yeah yeah, she points out the falacy of ignoring the rebuilding period after other wars, the time it took to return to normalcy and you pretend it doesn't matter because there were fewer deaths. Because it's always easier refute claims that weren't made, move goalposts, and pretend you've said something important.

The claim that other wars were over when they were over is clearly false. They all had lengthy rebuilding stages. We *stayed* for years after they were "over".

The claim that the "hot" portion of the Iraq war was over in mere weeks is arguably true. That most casualties have happened since then is true, but doesn't make the first part of the statement false.

World War 2 isn't very like Iraq (and Vietnam isn't very like either of them) and comparisons have limited value. The claim that Iraq has dragged on so very long is false on several levels. That this is the rebuilding stage and not the "hot" war stage is a resonable and intelligent point to make, even if there is room for disagreement.

Is it too long? Too hard? Is what we're trying to do impossible? Would it really have been better to pretend it was WW2 and bomb the living snot out of everything? Institute a draft and ship hundreds of thousands of untrained young men over there with a M-16 and a second pair of boots?

Peter Palladas said..."If it's 'universal justice for all' then get the heck over to Zimbabwe tonight.

I agree, as you and I have talked about before. However, given that U.S. forces are tied up at the moment, and given that Zimbabwe is not sui generis but a direct legacy of Britain's botched and irresponsible decolonialization process, and given that Britain seems to have an imminent troop availability, insofar as it's posed to cut and run from Iraq the moment Bliar's hands are prised from the levers of power, might I suggest that the Mother Country start to atone for its sins? The U.S. would, I'm sure, lend moral support and air power should it become necessary. Or does your commitment to overthrowing the Mugabe regime stop short of actually doing so, turning mainly on its utility as a rhetorical weapon with which berate U.S. foreign policy?

Check again RI, looks like Granny Smith still has the granny smith to me.

And yeah, labeling Bush an idiot did in fact force us to dumb down the standards for the word idiot, so I bet it may now finally fit Granny Smith. Before Bush she would have diagnosed as a vegetable but now she is an idiot. So she has that going for her.

Zimbabwe is not sui generis but a direct legacy of Britain's botched and irresponsible decolonialization process

Heh, why stop with Zimbabwe? You can pretty much look at quite a bit of Africa and the modern Middle East as the end result of irresponsible decolonialization. Pretty much every hellhole out there is a result of poor European mapmaking skills, creating countries with no regard to ethnic and tribal differences and then scratching thier heads and wondering why brutal desposts end up in power.

Many of my comments I referred in to in my post came from comments that this administration said regarding the war, not the media.

In terms of the Frank Rich article he should of used the entire quote in context, I was wrong, bad and an overall awful person for relying on him. I was not thinking out of my comfort zone and for that I will be forever in my BF Skinner box-thanks for pointing out my shortcomings.

Interesting enough in your effort to pull me out of my comfort zone you submit a quote from someone on one of the Pajamas Media network.

You have won me over. I am going on Snopes and Pajamas Media and not reading the NY Times ever again. No more New Republic either, neoliberal comfort zone that it is.

No more Frank Rich either. I am not going to go through all of the specifics of some other website only to say I was wrong, made a mistake and horrible for reading Frank Rich. He took Babs quote out of context and it was wrong and inexcusable. Is that not enough for you?

What else can I do? Vacation in Alabama rather than Ptown or Europe? Leave Cambridge/Boston and relocate to Provo? Please guide me Madasan. Mold me, educate me, love me!!

Sorry have to leave for a condo meeting. It's a loft building also Madwaskan-I promise to leave the trendiness of a loft and move to a 3 bedroom split level-gulp-in the suburbs. I am free Madwaskan-thank you for your guidance, I am not comfortable and I like it!!!

I've lost patience with the administration. I've lost patience with their demand for billions more dollars when billions have disappeared already and no one seems concerned.There seems to be no competence and no accountability so why 'should' I have any patience?However we're stuck there now and there's no easy solution. And that buck stops at The Oval Office.

Basically there were very, very few. Though he also makes the point that the destruction of the victory basically destroyed the fighting will of the occupied nations. Our significantly more careful war did not do this, leading to more post-war battles. Post-war, meaning of course, anything after Saddam was removed and we are fighting with the new, elected government of Iraq.

Different approaches to war have different results in the aftermath I suppose.

Bush needed to drive home this message a lot harder than he did, starting a lot sooner than he did.

He's said much the same thing now and then since before the war started, but for the most part he's been content to let other people do his talking for him. That's not the kind of leadership a President needs to show. People want a sense that the folks in charge have either a plan or the awareness that one is called for.

A belated response to Doyle's lame response to my challenge. I'm surprised his friends here didn't rush in with better answers, given the deficiencies in his:

Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot,

for which she was almost universally condemned by all conservative groups, and, anyway, was not in reference to his war position but to his physical appearance.

and Tom Delay just yesterday called all war critics traitors ("aiding and abetting the enemy").

You mean Tom Delay, the discredited former House leader who no longer holds public office? Again, to hit your mark, you have to reach for a renegade with little support anywhere.

What Delay and Coulter have in common is they need to be outrageous in order to get booked on liberal cable shows, so that hosts like Chris Matthew can say, "see? I told you they're all idiots." It's a backscratching kind of deal, since Delay and Coulter are now authors peddling books.

Moreover, there is an objective, non-partisan case to be made that if the leading party in Congress calls for unilateral withdrawal with zero negotiations, such a stance "aids and abets the enemy." The confusion is over who is our "enemy." Liberals think it's perfectly okay to withdraw unilaterally, because we are not fighting a real enemy. So, to them, they aren't aiding and abetting "the enemy." They are aiding and abetting "these people who want to control Iraq who we don't have an opinion about."

Glenn Reynolds have said war critics aren't anti-war "just on the other side", etc.

Bullshit. The two references I find where Glenn made these remarks were both introductions to snips from stories describing specific people about whom that statement was clearly true:

In 2003, in reference to a group of marchers in Sydney who said, specifically, "Saddam's our mate and we Arabs stick together."

In 2004, in reference to John Pilger, quoting this exchange:

JOHN PILGER: Well, certainly, historically, we've always depended on resistances to get rid of occupiers, to get rid of invaders. And what we have in Iraq now is I suppose the equivalent of a kind of Vichy Government being set up. And a resistance is always atrocious, it's always bloody. It always involves terrorism. . . . Now, I think the situation in Iraq is so dire that unless the United States is defeated there that we're likely to see an attack on Iran, we're likely to see an attack on North Korea and all the way down the road it could be even an attack on China within a decade, so I think what happens in Iraq now is incredibly important.

TONY JONES: Can you approve in that context the killing of American, British or Australian troops who are in the occupying forces?

JOHN PILGER: Well yes, they're legitimate targets. They're illegally occupying a country. And I would have thought from an Iraqi's point of view they are legitimate targets, they'd have to be, sure.

In short, in these two instances, Glenn was a) talking about Austrialians and b) talking about people who were avowedly on the "other side."

Doyle, you are such a phony. Most of what you say here has about the same level of credibility: None. Fine to have your opinions, but stay away from presenting anything one might confuse with facts. You wouldn't know one if it bit your ankle.

Four years after the invasion of Iraq, the high and growing demand for U.S. troops there and in Afghanistan has left ground forces in the United States short of the training, personnel and equipment that would be vital to fight a major ground conflict elsewhere, senior U.S. military and government officials acknowledge.

Four years after the invasion of Iraq, the high and growing demand for U.S. troops there and in Afghanistan has left ground forces in the United States short of the training, personnel and equipment that would be vital to fight a major ground conflict elsewhere, senior U.S. military and government officials acknowledge.

I always have had a bit of trouble with that. Let's ask Captain Seenitall:

Captain, Would you rather have troops that have seen three tours of combat or troops that are well trained but have never seen a shot in anger?

Captain, Would you rather have equipment that has chnaged quite a bit in the last four years under the accelerated pace of war, or more of the old stuff in better shape?

Captain, what exactly do you mean that they can take the pre-war training and put it in a dark place because it did not reflect reality?

"Glenn Reynolds have said war critics aren't anti-war "just on the other side", etc.

Bullshit.

Pretty much, yeah. Reynolds said that several times back in 2002 and 2003, but in reference to groups such as ANSWER -- which quite literally IS "on the other side" -- and not to "war critics" in general.

It was an accurate comment when he said it, back before anti-war sentiment was normal. It would not be an accurate comment today, which is why he doesn't say it anymore.

The government borrows money at extremely low interest rates. Investments, even factoring in the periodic crashes and recessions, earn a higher interest rate. So yes, tax cuts do exist, even if the government has to borrow money to meet its spending needs. The next generation will get stuck with the bill, but those investments mean that the next generation will be richer than this one.

Corporations use the same strategy when THEY issue bonds -- they borrow money now in order to make even more money later on.

While American forces were fighting overseas or training at US military camps, families at home were also fully engaged in the war effort. From selling War Bonds to saving bacon fat, Americans did all they could at home to support the troops and their mission.

WAR BONDS: The sale of War Bonds and War Stamps from 1942-1945, by everyone from children going door-to-door to movie stars Abbott and Costello and Irene Dunne...

RATIONING: 'Making do with less' was the rallying cry on the American Homefront. Following the example of its British cousins, America soon began the rationing of critical goods....WOMEN AT WORK: "Rosie the Riveter" - During the war years, as men marched off to battle, women on the Home Front marched into factories and made tremendous contributions to the war effort. In great numbers, -- more than 6 million -- women from all across American went to work in war-related industries...VICTORY GARDENS: As certain food products became scarcer, Americans turned their attention to growing their own...SALVAGE DRIVES: During the war years, Americans got their first taste of recycling....CIVILIAN DEFENSE EFFORTS: In May 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt created the Office of Civilian Defense (OCD), with New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia as its chief.

My question: if this fight against the Islamists is supposed to be the existential battle for our survival that the war cheerleaders claim it is, why have we not, as a country, been asked to sacrifice as we were during WWII? The burden of this war has fallen solely on the soldiers fighting this war and their families. That the President has not asked for at least some sacrifice speaks volumes either about his leadership or our selfishness. I'm afraid it is a little bit of both.

That's interesting. What is the government investing in? And what return are they getting?

It is the people who are allowed to retain their income, instead of having it taken as taxes, that are doing the investing. A private citizen investing his money earns around 10% a year on it, on average, whereas the government has to pay around 5% interest on its debt.

Simply put, this means that a person who is taxed now ends up worse off in the future than a person who gets taxed in the future to pay off today's borrowing.

Madawaksan worked for Goldwater-wow, your an old fart. You know many "liberals" now have a new found love for him.

All this blogging friction between the two of us was getting me a little hot but you are a little too old-sorry but we can be friends. I was going to suggest that we take this conversation of ours "offline".

I guess we have something in common-you know Babs and George and my next door neighbor dated Jenna and worked for Bush. I guess that makes us star....ers.

We are like soul sisters, hugs.

I am not a democrat either. I am independent and just don't think Bush has done a good job. Questioning Bush's competency does not automatically make someone a Democrat. Many independents don't like Bush. I have voted republican for governor here over the past 16 years including Romney (when he was another candidate than he is today) as well voted for Celucci and Weld-both Republicans but would be left wing fanatics in most parts of the country. Also, I love Rudy and Bloomberg, both R's. I will likely vote for Rudy.

As far as Fox, thanks for the suggestion about not having my kids watching but can't help you there. I am a fag and have no kids-but my wardrobe is fierce!

I am looking at real estate though in Provo and I could have a fabulous mansion for the price of my loft here in Boston. Unfortunately, Provo doesn't have any biotech companies focusing on cancer drugs (prostrate and breast) that are saving peoples lives or stem cell research that hire Harvard grad's-oops another "comfort zone" of mine-elite educational background-bad, bad, bad.

This war has not been sanctioned by the American people. We should get out. President Bush has tried to explain why we're there and I don't think the majority of Americans agree with him. It's his war. He's an idiot and we should all be ashamed that he's gotten away with this.

Simply put, this means that a person who is taxed now ends up worse off in the future than a person who gets taxed in the future to pay off today's borrowing.

Okay, so you agree that the government's makes no money from investment. So when the government borrows to spend it has to pay that back either by inflating the debt away or by raising taxes to pay the debt off.

Well this does make sense! We should cut taxes to zero now, and just borrow money for everything, and we'll all be much better off than the joe that gets taxed in the future.

This is in fact the strategy of everything the modern Republican party does. Party now like there is no tomorrow 'cause we ain't going to be here when the check comes due. Debt, Environment, Cronyism, ....

Do you have any recommendations for when the government should actually try and pay for something and not just heap it onto the debt that someone will eventually have to pay for?

How long can we keep taxes at zero and just toss all new debt onto the existing debt?

Can we go lower than zero? Why not just give everyone a whopping earned income tax credit? We'll all be much better off in the future and we can pay that debt down.

Peter, my understanding was that Britain had around 8500 troops in Iraq presently, down from a high of 40,000. So (a) what're you guys doing with the 31,500 that were in Iraq and now aren't and (b) once Brown pulls the present 8500, you'll have at least 8500 untasked forces. How many does it take to excise the Mugabe government, given that the African Union would jump at the chance to help out after he's canned?

Pretty much, yeah. Reynolds said that several times back in 2002 and 2003, but in reference to groups such as ANSWER -- which quite literally IS "on the other side" -- and not to "war critics" in general.

What makes Doyle's comment doubly dishonest and/or idiotic is that, from what I have been able to find, Glenn never directed the "on the other side" remark toward any Americans.

Doyle left the clear implication that those who favor the war routinely challenge both the sexual orientation and the patriotism of Americans who disagree with them. But the only example Doyle can find of the latter is a remark aimed at pro-Saddam Australians! (I also found the expression used once by Eugene Volokh -- aimed at George Galloway, the avowedly pro-Saddam member of the British parliament.)

But I suppose Doyle might say that's where it starts. One minute you're questioning the loyalty of pro-Saddam Australians, the next minute, it's McCarthyism all over again!

Nice to see my beloved country living up to our enemies' beliefs about us...that there is not a war that we will support. The US has become a paper tiger.

Actually, as a supporter of this war, I'm not too shaken up by its unpopularity at this point in terms of what it means about the US.

1) War should never be popular.

2) Americans are, by nature, isolationists. Uneasy lies the crown. If Bush "lied" us into this war, what would you call what FDR did to get us into WWII? We're not a paper tiger, we're just slow to react to threats in part because we don't believe they're really threats, so mighty are we.

3) It is literally incredible that, despite these aspects of American culture, we have hundreds of thousands of extremely brave and patriotic men and women now willing to serve as volunteers in precisely the circumstances we are in now. The left can excuse it away all they want, the fact that military recruitment has stayed strong throughout this war says something about America's fighting spirit.

4)The unpopularity of this particular war cannot be separated from the incompetent way it was waged. Rumsfeld truly had a catastrophic strategy, to which he demanded blind obedience. There is nothing more dangerous than aggressive stupidity.

5) There is one kind of war Americans do favor: Cold wars. For two generations there has been bipartisan support for a large military presence, high defense spending, and redundancies in our defense to ensure its credibility.

There's an adjustment going on to the kind of military situation we face now, that we haven't faced in our history before -- assymetrical warfare, suicide warriors, the ability of small forces to obtain long-range weapons and WMDs, requires new thinking at the deepest levels. It might be another decade before we have a "winning" strategy. We've wasted the entire Clinton presidency and the first six years of Bush's not facing the world squarely, but this partial debacle is going to force us to do it.

Unfortunately, I have to partially agree with Reality Check regarding taxes and spending. He is right that spending is truly what matters in the end of for government finances. The more government spends, the less the private sector spends. Because private people are more efficient at creating assets than the government, it's better to have smart rich people spend the money than government.

However, tax cuts do have their place. The best use of tax cuts in the short term is to create a deficit which creates political pressure to cut spending.

The best use for tax cuts in the long term is to get more money to the productive people in society.

The government gets most of its money from rich people. The government can either borrow from rich people or tax rich people. Either way most of the money comes from the same pot. When you hear the comment that the government is spending our childrens future, it is really only mostly true for rich children of the the future. The government will tax rich children in the future for the money it borrows from rich people today.

When the government taxes rich people too much, however, it reduces the amount of money that is put to good use by the productive people in society. The government is mostly bad at creating assets and most good assets are created by rich people or by people who borrow or get investments from rich people. Sometimes it's better for the government to borrow from rich people because then it is only taking away the money that Rich people are not putting to good use (people have have no investment ideas or are risk averse tend to do things like buy government bonds.... When you tax people too much you take money away from the productive people as well as the lazy people, which in the end reduces growth. The secret is to find the happy point.

George Bush has proven with his tax cuts that the happy point was a much lower tax than the tax rate in 2000. I believe that the happy point for taxes is even still lower.

Mellow-Drama said... I've got patience, but for the mission, not for George W. Bush. I supported the invasion and I'm appalled at how badly it's gone, when very smart people were giving useful advice about numbers and tactics that should have been followed a lot sooner, before all of the political capital was spent.

Pretty well on mark. The war was necessary, IMO, because Saddam had stupidly convinced the whole world, including his OWN Generals, that he had large stockpiles of WMD. Not just "lying" Bush and Neocons. The whole fucking world outside Lefties who for ideological reasons, denied the potential menace of WMD in an Islmaic dictator's hands as vigorously as they denied the menace of Soviet WMD. Oh, and the small matters of violating 17 UN Security Council Resolutions, his daily firing on pilots enforcing the UN-designated "no fly zones", and his ongoing human rights violations - killing and torturing over 6,000 Iraqis a year (down from his 1980s, early 90s peak).

Where Team Bush failed badly was in the postwar, in promising tax cuts for the wealthy instead of working to get all Americans to sacrifice as needed. And in his utter stupidity of thinking he had a "ace card" in purple-finger "democracy" and clinging to Rumsfeld and his failed strategy for at least a year and a half after failure of what Rumsfeld did was obvious. Worse, the fool thought he had to keep loyalty to "Rummy" publicly even though he had listened to Republican leaders that he had to go, and waited until after the elections. Which cost Republicans the Senate and between 10 and 15 House seats. (Something that has, along with Iraq, immigration failure, Miers nomination, Katrina failing open...assured Bush is held in contempt privately by most Republicans who still publicly back him).

But the problem is that other necessary wars have been fought badly, with poor leadership. The present partisan hatred of the "leader" should never obscure the need for prevailing. Napoleon cleaned up in Europe as incompetents in other lands pointed fingers at one another over who was "at fault" for failing to stop him. Russia was so badly led in WWI that the last year of the war turned into both military chaos that cost them a million extra casualties, and by idiots of several factions solely interested in political power redistribution. The Czar's court did. The nobles played games. The Orthodox Church did. The generals did. The only thing that gained them was Civil War and the winning Jewish and Gentile atheists Bolsheviks lining the old order up along walls and death pits and killing them, or sending them off to slow death in the Gulags or Avram Yagoda's slave labor system.

America must be exceptionally wary of repeating historical mistakes of other bad leaders in necessary wars. Without Vicksburg and Atlanta, Lincoln and his group, who had made many blunders in earlier Civil War decisions - would have lost the 1864 election to Democrat defeatists who had announced they would seek armistice with the Confederates and keep slavery intact.

That is 100% pure unadulterated bullshit. What about the entire transportation system in this country? The internet? Water and and waste water treatment systems. Practically the entire freaking infrastructure west of the Mississippi River.

The only thing that gained them was Civil War and the winning Jewish and Gentile atheists Bolsheviks lining the old order up along walls and death pits and killing them, or sending them off to slow death

Umm, why are the Jewish communists still Jewish while the Gentiles "atheist". Stalin, after all, was headed for an Orthodox seminary. You are one anti-semitic bastard, aren't you?

JohnStodder the fluffer sez, What makes Doyle's comment doubly dishonest and/or idiotic is that, from what I have been able to find, Glenn never directed the "on the other side" remark toward any Americans.

My question: if this fight against the Islamists is supposed to be the existential battle for our survival that the war cheerleaders claim it is, why have we not, as a country, been asked to sacrifice as we were during WWII?

That's such a breathtakingly stupid question that I hardly know where to begin answering it. I'll just list a few obvious facts:

(1): The WW2 US government was trying to build a massive military force using an economy that was just coming out of a depression, whereas the modern US is filthy rich and already has a large military.

(2): In the 1940s we were supplying the entire Allied side with material goods (we essentially fed, clothed, and provided fuel, trucks, and trains for the entire Soviet Army, for instance). Today we're just supplying us. Obviously the need for, say, food rationing is reduced when you aren't having to feed tens of millions of starving Soviets as well as your own population.

(3): The 1940s American government's control over information about the war allowed it to get the public to agree to austerity measures they'd never have agreed to if they'd realized just how badly Germany and Japan were doing by late 1943.

(4): The WW2 American economy was a centrally-controlled command economy. Those always produce shortages, inconveniences, rationing, etc. The modern economy is capitalistic and therefore does a much better job of meeting our needs.

(5): The nature of the military threat has changed. The big danger in the 1940s was invading armies, which naturally required a large army to counteract. The big danger today is nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists or rogue states -- neither problem can be solved by throwing millions of troops at it.

(6): Most of the world was on one side or the other of WW2, which disrupted the entire world's economy. In the current war most of the world is staying out.

In 1924, a slight majority of the Soviet Central Committee was Jewish. (3% of the population) The remainder were atheist Gentiles. Priests, monks, and practicing Christians prominent in Orthodox laity were prime targets.

The facts are what they are.

All the mechanisms of the Red Terror and liquidation means, the Gulags, the engineered famine in Ukraine, the slave labor system employed to kill 700,000 other political prsioners was in place long before Stalin had power.

Despite desperate Leftist efforts to sweep the mass murders of the communists under the rug - 4 the times the numbers what Hitler did - the fall of the Soviet Union and access to state archives completed the scholar's picture of who did what in the Bolshevik era, then in the Stalin era, and why. More and more, it can be discussed openly. The end of the Soviets was one phase, the French publication of the "Black Book of Communism" marks the agreement of the socialist intelligensia that it can be discussed, and inside Russia itself and it's breakaway states, the slaughter and attempts to eradicate Christianity and Islam are open for debate.

The short answer is: if we can to it with the level of expenditure we're now at, or thereabouts, why on earth should we spend more?

Freder,

You only just noticed? It's really embarrassing to have C4 on my side of the question more often that not (though lately he seems headed straight for Pat Buchanan nativist territory, so I'll soon be able to bid a not-so-fond adieu.)

Okay, so you agree that the government's makes no money from investment. So when the government borrows to spend it has to pay that back either by inflating the debt away or by raising taxes to pay the debt off.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

Well this does make sense! We should cut taxes to zero now, and just borrow money for everything, and we'll all be much better off than the joe that gets taxed in the future

If there was a sufficiently large supply of money available for borrowing that would, indeed, be exactly the right thing to do. There isn't, so it isn't.

The law of supply and demand means that interest rates rise as we try to borrow a bigger and bigger piece of that pool of money. We can borrow hundreds of billions of dollars at 5% interest, but it is highly doubtful that we could borrow the *trillions* that would be necessary to pay for the whole government without offering prohibitively high interest rates.

Do you have any recommendations for when the government should actually try and pay for something and not just heap it onto the debt that someone will eventually have to pay for?

I favor the government doing the economically sensible thing. The best case scenario is to not spend much, but if is going to spend it should get the money as cheaply as possible. Today, that way is by borrowing it.

I'd also point out that our progressive income tax system means that 80% of Americans are making somebody else pay for their government benefits, while 20% of Americans pay for more benefits than they receive. So I don't see the grounds for your moral outrage at the idea of making people in the future pay for our benefits. When 80% of the American public is freeloading, what does it matter if they're freeloading off the currently-living or the as-yet-unborn? At least the latter group will be, on average, richer than us.

Yes, Bush has been hapless in many ways. I voted for him twice, and given the alternatives in each of those elections, I'd do it again. But hapless he has been.

At the same time I'm extremely leery --as in leery to the max-- of believing anything the mainstream media has to say about how things stand in Iraq. They've been fully invested in the US failing there so they could pin that failure on Bush for purely partisan political reasons, so they have disqualified themselves as a credible source.

I also strongly believe that, as bad as things have supposedly gone there if the naysayers are to be believed, it's nothing compared to how bad things will go there if the US pulls out.

Meanwhile I know several soldiers and marines who have served there, including some still there. They all tell me that good things are happening there.

"My question: if this fight against the Islamists is supposed to be the existential battle for our survival that the war cheerleaders claim it is, why have we not, as a country, been asked to sacrifice as we were during WWII? The burden of this war has fallen solely on the soldiers fighting this war and their families. That the President has not asked for at least some sacrifice speaks volumes either about his leadership or our selfishness. I'm afraid it is a little bit of both."

No one is stopping you, Shan.

What is it about *forced* sacrifice that liberals like so much? What about being *made* to contribute defines some higher nobility?

Lefties love to say how they "support the troops" - but that the deaths are just "too much for the country to bear", and support reallymeans bringing the children home from Iraq so they can be nurtured by caring mothers and liberals

By an objective measure, it seems strange to argue that the only troops you care about are dead ones or the "victims". Leftists and many Blue Democrats show they do not support troops by decades of trying to gut military spending on things like Walter Reed barracks as "wasteful", being ardently against allowing recruiters in or ROTC to train people that can join the troops they support so much. Nor are Lefties and True-Blue liberal Democrats much for celebrating heroism, since they confuse being a hero with being a victim.

Next to dying, the highest celebration they seem to muster is for someone in the military that suffers a loss of limb(s) - be it by enemy fire (Tammy Duckworth) or accidentally (Max Cleland). Also high in the Lefty military hero pantheon is being a POW and "suffering". That would be OK, except the Left and liberal Democrats are either not caring or openly hostile to military heros recieving medals for valor if they don't get hurt badly or die in the process. (milblogs report that some Congress lefties have refused to meet with their soldier constituents in DC to recieve high awards for valor - Silver Star, Navy Cross, DSC - on grounds it "celebrates senseless killing in a wrong war".)

Few Leftists celebrate the military service of the dead or unamputated, unless they are ideologically simpatico. Few Leftist/progressive Democrats will congratulate a soldier on heroism in fighting and killing the enemy, or show any enthusiasm for the medals awarded as "support the troops" measures.

They are too busy making their little fake "Dying for Bush is Unbearable" cemeteries, replete with the fake crosses, Islamic crescents...and shoes.

Care packages to soldiers are most prevalent in southern, and christian households.

Some stats for our Lefty "I love the troops in their victimhood!!" pals:

1. Every day in America, ~5700 people die, many horribly tragically, many well before their time. 2.18 million total in 2004. The "unbearababilty" of 800 military deaths a year, 250 by accidents - doesn't seem "unbearable" in a national context.

2. In Jimmy Carters peace time military, before Reagan modernized the military and put safety steps in place - 2200 troops a year died as "unbearable" fatalities from accidents, suicide, criminal violence. In each of Bush's years, the "unbearable" losses are half that of Carters, and Carters far below JFK's peacetime losses for that matter.

3. 3200 dead that "nurtering, caring progressives" say it will "take us decades to recover from" compares to 660,000 dead in the Civil War over the same time span. Given the population was only 31,445,000 at the time, that is the equivalent of 6,480,000 dying in a war over "people that never really attacked us, just had their own multicultural diversity we had no right to meddle in (slaveowning, southern ways) and shelled a minor fort."

4. The Soviets lost 15,490 a DAY in WWII.

5. For all the blubbering about Darfur, Lefties and progressives have been completely unable to get progressive Euroweenie nations to commit troops given the US is busy elsewhere. Their solution is the US must disengage from Iraq so we can flout the UN and "save Darfur", and let the noble Euroweenies watch and ensure US troops don't "violate sacred international laws". (No thanks!)

Face it, everyone knows what a Lefty or Progressive Democrat means by "I support the troops".

We can borrow hundreds of billions of dollars at 5% interest, but it is highly doubtful that we could borrow the *trillions* that would be necessary to pay for the whole government without offering prohibitively high interest rates.

Following World War II our debt was 1.5 GDP without much of an increase in interest rates. Today it is .5. No one really knows how much we can borrow before interest rates rise significantly.

Cedarford -- Sorry, but that's not correct. Its just not. You can support the troops as individuals without supporting the war in which they fight.

The only soldiers the mainstream left doesn't support are the ones who practice torture.

Of course, by "support our troops," I do not mean to say that the left supports the thousands of MERCENARIES that the United States has hired to do its dirty work in Iraq. That entire situation sickens me.

I agree with Cedarford. If you do not support the mission you do not support the troops.

Here is a different take on it:

Part of supporting our troops is to relish in the glory and heroism of their sacrifice and their selfless rally to the cause. This call to glory is part of the attraction to be a soldier. If we lose the war, this glory will be forgotten and our soldiers will be seen as victims and losers in society.

Thus, if you do not support the mission, you are supporting the victimization of our troops and the stain that our troops will feel from the loss. You will sentence them to a lifetime of statistics as a PTSD sufferer or pension burden on the government. What good is that without the glory of victory.

Of course, by "support our troops," I do not mean to say that the left supports the thousands of MERCENARIES that the United States has hired to do its dirty work in Iraq. That entire situation sickens me.

By mercenaries, you are referring to the entire armed forces I assume. How quaint.

Nope, you're wrong and you know it. I mean mercenaries -- the third-party contractors the government has hired to do our dirty work. Hooray for unaccountability! The actual military has to follow rules, and has a code of ethics! So let's hire some pissed-off former special forces commandos, eastern europeans and South African white supremacists to do the nasty stuff for us! This is ouuuuuuuuuuuur country!

The problem is of long standing (as my earlier post noted) but it got worse for him this week, when the St. Petersburg Democratic Club ran a rather unattractive newspaper ad on the war. The ad got a lot of attention, and most of it was focused on the ad's violent language directed at Donald Rumsfeld:

"We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say 'This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger."

But, sadly, there was more. The ad also praises the "Iraqi insurgents" who are trying to kill American troops:

The Bush Bunch calls the Iraqis insurgents. Did you know that Britain called the American revolutionaries insurgents and traitors? The Iraqis aren't insurgents. They're Iraqi patriates [sic] who want us the hell out of their country, and we should get the hell out of their country now!

Once again, siding with the enemy like this isn't opposing war, it's, well, siding with the enemy. (Not to mention flunking spelling.) And Kerry has trouble even talking about trying to win the war:

During a question-and-answer session with the audience, retired college professor Walter Daum angrily accused Kerry of backing an imperialist policy in Iraq and called on the candidate to demand the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops."You voted for this," Daum shouted. As he spoke, a group stood silently and unfurled a large sign that read, "Kerry take a stand: Troops out now.""You're not listening," an exasperated Kerry said at one point.Later, speaking with reporters, Kerry dismissed the notion of withdrawing American forces and indicated that if U.S. generals and other senior officials say they need more troops, he would back such a move. Bush at his news conference Tuesday night said he would support an increase in the military presence in Iraq."I think the vast majority of the American people understand that it's important to not just cut and run," Kerry said. "I don't believe in a cut-and-run philosophy."

Kerry's problem is that a lot of the Democratic base -- and in particularly a lot of the noisy Democratic base -- sees things differently. He's gotten into the race by stressing his differences with Bush on the war, but he's going to have a hard time being elected if he can't stress his differences with the anti-American elements within his party.

As this example demonstrates, that's going to be hard. But it seems certain that Kerry can't be elected President if he's seen as the candidate of a party that can't even spell the word "patriot."

Yes, however, you did bust me. (I forgot about his MSNBC column, which I never read.) You found an American he aimed this phrase at. You can decide whether it was justified or not. I'd actually be curious what you think.

Speaking for myself, I don't think war opponents are unpatriotic or hate America. I think the disagreements are political, intellectual, emotional, ideological. It's frustrating to have my views caricatured as "challenging your patriotism" or questioning your manhood. I do listen. I respect that there is good faith among many on the other side. I don't think I'm being listened to, however.

Oh, and I never watch Fox News, except occasionally in a hotel when there's nothing else on. I vote for Democrats usually. Do let me know how much exposure will rot my brain, will you?

Peter, my understanding was that Britain had around 8500 troops in Iraq presently, down from a high of 40,000.

"The reduction means a total of 3,000 troops will have been withdrawn since October 2003, when there were 10,000 British troops there." - Statement in 06 by Defence Secretary.

Simon,

We've never had 40,000 troops at any one time in Iraq. Maybe the total on rotation but even then I doubt it.

The very clear message from our Army chiefs is that they are totally overstretched in terms of both personnel and equipment, calling out for an effective volume of reinforcements in Afghanistan with the Government not able to commit the numbers necessary there.

But then again, I reckon a couple of dozen SAS soldiers could take out Mugabe without any problem.

So should they go? My moral instinct is to say - and I have cousins who have been forced to flee the place - give me a pistol and I'm right there with you.

Seriously. I've a few projects on, meeting booked and so forth, but heck this is genuine liberation.

The only shame is that it didn't happen ten/fifteen years ago before the man ruined the entire economy. (A BBC story yesterday about a funeral that cost Z$3m. when the coffin arrived, but had risen to Z$4.5m by the time the service was over.)

But maybe I'm just being a Bush - I see a clear mission and I want to get stuck in. Who knows what chaos will result once Mugabe has gone if taken out by foreign troops.

Zanu PF is strong, well-armed and nothing to gain from surrender. Civil war on a tribal split is the most likely place Zim will be in a year's time.

To act by external military force or not to act? How would I know, I am not the political or military expert.

Depose Mugabe and Mission Accomplished? That for sure not.

But give me that pistol and a decent shade of face camouflage and I'm on my way!

Right, cause that 20% doesn't benefit when that 80% works in the field, or in the police car or fire department or army or buy from the walmart or teach the kids.

That argument would make sense if the 80% were all employed by the government and working exclusively for the benefit of the 20%. In reality the 80% of the population receives the exact same benefits as the 20% -- it just doesn't have to pay for them.

Anyway, as amusing as it might be that you find it better to shit away your children's inheritance today than it is to leave them with a large sum of investments and a smaller sum of debts, I'm afraid my earlier suspicions that you've no comprehension of economics have been borne out. There's little point in continuing the conversation.

You can support the troops as individuals without supporting the war in which they fight.

You can in theory, it just doesn't happen very often in real life.

Most left-wingers don't offer "support" so much as "ill-informed pity and condescension" (e.g. Kerry's "getting stuck in Iraq" remarks about academic failures). Rare indeed is a left-winger who truly values soldiers for their military role and their service to the country.

Anybody who thinks that opponents of our President's warmongering hate America clearly don't understand the meaning of the word patriotism.

Anybody who thinks that groups like ANSWER and people like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky *don't* hate America simply hasn't been paying attention.

Obviously today there are plenty of anti-war people who don't hate America. But the driving forces behind the anti-war demonstrations -- the people who were anti-war before it was the popular thing to be -- are heavily dominated by people who have serious hate issues where the USA is concerned.

johnstodder said... Speaking for myself, I don't think war opponents are unpatriotic or hate America. I think the disagreements are political, intellectual, emotional, ideological.

I would say that MOST war opponents are not Anti-American. But a sizable minority are. Some hate America and everything it stands for. Others are in open sympathy with some or all of America's enemies. Others still are "transnational progressives" that say patriotism, loyalty, are obsolete concepts and deny any affiliation with America or need to defend this country is still relevant.

The worst are the ones that conceed what they are saying and doing is badly hurting the country, but that is not as important as defeating Bush-Hitler. (BDS)

******************A nice example is Wade Garrett, who appears to endorse the Koz position of "fuck 'em" when American civilians get killed.

MERCENARIES!!

Which begs the description of who is a mercenary to the Far Left. It appears to be any Turk, Egyptian, Nigerian, American, Filipino doing any work to support the rear echelon supply and services needs. It also appears to be any civilian that is providing security for any company, various officials trying to rebuild Iraq or provide security for those civilians working to bring supplies and services in for the American effort or defend Iraqis doing projects like electricity restoration.

Of course, the Far Left does not object to the "protection" of NGOs and media people reporting on how awful Iraq is. THAT protection is NOT by dastardly mercenaries, but necessary so noble NGOs and "truthtelling" journalists can do their job.

********************

Revenent - Most left-wingers don't offer "support" so much as "ill-informed pity and condescension" (e.g. Kerry's "getting stuck in Iraq" remarks about academic failures). Rare indeed is a left-winger who truly values soldiers for their military role and their service to the country.

True, the only troops the hard Left haters "love" are the dead ones they can use as anti-war tools. And the living ones they can cast as dumb, hapless infantilized lost souls who have achieved the Left's version of heroism - some sort of victimhood claim the Left can seize by proxy to show how much they "care" for the poor children in uniform.

How they only want to salve their maimed stumps or get the "victims of Bush" back to mommy and a nurtering community of progressives...

The anti-American wing LOVES those that desert the military or refuse orders to deploy to Iraq. And though they "support the troops" deny them recruiting, ROTC, funding, disrespect their valor and missions completed at every opportunity. (Or like the NYTimes and it's ilk - refuse to report on the bravery, incredible missions done - while saturation-covering any negative event to better demoralize the troops and American public - and encourage the enemy killing Americans that their grievances are valid.

They do this through the smear on everyone of the "troops they support" with collective denunciations for Abu Ghraib, "murdering babies and innocent Iraqi women", etc.. - at every opportunity.

It's actually good they are doing it - because they don't realize how far out on a limb the Left is going, but wittingly or not, their statements and actions now will be on the record 10 years from now. Just as the Copperheads of the North were made permanent pariahs barred from politics, academia, firms, and becoming judges because their "swing to supporting the South to bring peace" was a horrible miscalculation. Or how the American Communists who declared it was the duty of all true Party members to support the interests of Russia over America in the 20s and 30s found their words crippled their careers starting with Truman in 1946.

For those who have let their love of terrorist rights and hatred of Halliburton, Bush, this "stupid monster known as America" spin totally out of control and got them so far out on the limb - there will be a time in the war with radical Islam when Americans will have had enough of those fellow Americans sabotaging the country and will begin the work of sawing to let them fall from their perches in Courts, politics, academia, being teachers, having undue influence in MSM, and inner city machines..

I am personally happy to see so many, so angry, so deranged - that they are openly outing themselves as anti-Americans. Going on record. It all gets saved, now..

I would say that MOST war opponents are not Anti-American. But a sizable minority are. Some hate America and everything it stands for. Others are in open sympathy with some or all of America's enemies.

I would say most Republicans are not anti-american. But a sizable number are.

Some are like Tim McVeigh, they hate America and everything it stands for and will do what they can to bring down the government. Some are like Eric Rudolph and murder citizens engaged in lawful activities that they disagree with. Some are like Chad Conrad Castagana, a member of the free republic that sent anthrax threats to people he disagreed with. Some are like Jerry Falwell who says that 911 was caused by gays. Some are like Fred Phelps who says all of are problems are caused by gays. Some are like Cedarford who blames Jews for his problem, but who otherwise blames liberals for his problems though he cannot specifically name a single one. Some are like Paul A'Barge who calls for violence against people that disagree with him.

Blah blah blah.

From this thread, it is clear that it is not the liberals that are unhinged and America haters, it is the Cedarfords and Revenants.

And I am appalled at how non of you guys will defend George Bush.

All of you guys now think Bush is an a*hole, but you are also certain that liberals hate America.

You guys not only have BDS, you have America Derangement Syndrome. You hate what our country was founded for, and what our country has accomplished.